Okay, so your source claims to cite a legit journal, even though it links to the journal's home page and not to the article in question (which still casts suspicion, but oh well). That still doesn't resolve the problem that this article of yours has nothing to do with the topic of discussion, natural selection.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

That still doesn't resolve the problem that this article of yours has nothing to do with the topic of discussion, natural selection.

it shows harmful genes are commonwhich should not be the case for natural selection cliams harmful genes should be rarethus NS is wrong

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.

The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.

Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong genetic basis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs.

There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington's disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis

I've been trying to figure out why your last quote from an article on cancer research is at all relevant to your argument, but in light of some of your other comments, I think the title of the article "Researchers find new breast cancer genes" is causing the problem. New genes. You seem to be under the impression that speciation is caused by, or at least requires, the appearance of new genes. Before talking about how new genes develop, I'd like to clear up a common misconception that may or may not be contributing to your misunderstanding of the issues here.

This news article talks about new cancer genes. These genes are not new genes, they are just known genes that have been newly linked to some forms of cancer. And their function is not to cause cancer, but to perform some normal biological function that is probably described in the research article but is not mentioned in the news article. Some alleles of these genes (an allele is a variant of a gene - most genes have many variants in a population, but any one person can have at most two alleles for any gene, one from the mother and one from the father) possess polymorphisms (differences) that disrupt the normal function of the proteins encoded by the genes. Cancer is caused by the unfortunate co-existence of mutations in multiple genes, not by single mutations in only one gene. There are no genes whose function is to cause cancer.

Now, new genes. New genes arise from old genes (no spontaneous generation at the genetic level either). Genomes are not static things, particularly at the population level. We talk about "the human genome" or the genome of this or that species. If the genomes from all humans (or all individuals of any species) were completely sequenced and compared, you would be amazed at the differences that exist between individuals. And not just differences in alleles of genes, but differences in the numbers and locations of genes within "the" human genome. Genes get duplicated, small or large bits of chromosomes get duplicated, or deleted, or inverted, or transferred from one part of a chromosome to another or to a different chromosome. Some small bits of chromosomes can get duplicated, which then form small, independently reproduced circles. There's plenty of weird stuff happening in the genomes of species. Sometimes entire genomes get duplicated, leading to polyploid organisms (we are diploid).

When a gene is duplicated, you now have two copies of the same gene, so the copy is not actually needed. If a mutation occurs in the copy that would normally cause a complete loss of function, no worries, the original is still there to perform that function. The copy is essentially a renegade and can continue to accumulate mutations without having any effect on the species' fitness. If the copy still has its control sequences or finds itself embedded in another part of the genome where a protein can be produced from it, maybe (probably not, but maybe) it could some day a thousand years hence produce a protein that ends up with a different function. Try not to picture this happening as a single event within a single individual or lineage, but as multiple events accumulating within populations over very, very long periods of time. Sometime, somewhere one of these renegades is going to end up as a "new gene". Most of the trash is trash and will get tossed out eventually, but sometimes trash can be useful.

You don't need new genes to get a new species. The genomes of humans and chimps are virtually identical in the genes that they contain, and there are no "chimp genes" that make a chimp a chimp. The difference between humans and chimps is determined by different alleles of common genes and by how and when our common genes are expressed (the production of the proteins that the genes encode). Imagine that. Two closely related species could even have the same genes and the same range of alleles of these genes yet be unable to interbreed due to something as trivial as a behavioural difference in the mating ritual.

The biological world is in a constant state of change. What we call species are discontinuities that we can recognize by morphology or genetics (or behaviour). What we choose to call a species is indeed a human construct, but these constructs are based on observation and are just our attempt at categorizing the biological world. You are right in stating that there is no agreed definition of what a species is. Few biologists will argue this point. The lack of a universal definition, however, in no way negates that speciation has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur. What it does illustrate, though, is the richness of the biological world. We try to digitize organisms into discreet groupings as best we can, but the biological world is better viewed as an analogue continuum in constant flux with smaller or larger gaps here and there that we choose to call species (with varying levels of success or justification).

Natural selection does not need new genes to operate. It operates in every gene of every individual of every population of every species every day. Given enough individuals with enough genetic variation in enough environments over a long enough time, natural selection will lead to the formation of new species.

As far as the presence of so many harmful "genes" in the human genome is concerned, you (and the popular press) are confusing the terms "genes" and "alleles". I think the last guestimate of how many genes we have stands at about 35,000 (someone give me an update if there is one). And there are roughly 6,000 single-gene disorders. My, but we're in trouble. Why are only 1 in 200 births affected? My math is not particularly good, but shouldn't there be more than 1 in 200 births affected? This discrepancy is due to there not being 6,000 bad genes in our genome, but 6,000 genes that have bad alleles in the population. Some genes can have hundeds of alleles, some of which may not work very well and can cause disease. Most alleles do just fine. New alleles arise all the time. They can arise by new mutations, but they can also arise by recombination during meiosis that ensures that no two individuals will ever be genetically identical (except monozygotic twins). So, bad alleles, over time, tend to be slowly (sometimes quickly if they are fatal or prevent reproduction) removed from populations by means of natural selection. New alleles are arising all the time, some of which may cause problems. I suspect that modern medicine and reproductive technologies will tend to increase the frequenccies of bad alleles in us. The presence of so many bad alleles in our species is, though, quite normal. Alleles come and go. Evolution, in part, is the change in frequencies of alleles over time.

You seem to be under the impression that speciation is caused by, or at least requires, the appearance of new genes

there i am talking about traits not genes

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

and as such NS is invalidated ny speciation

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new speciesgenetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them onNS is all about the transmission of already acquired traitsif evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem

While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

OK. I'm considering calling it quits on this thread. I don't know why I've tried so hard to explain some of the basics behind natural selectiion. My wife's been away for the last week, and maybe I'm just getting bored. Sometimes, though, I feel like a missionary, willing to strive to save even a single poor soul lost in the wilderness. But if that soul has no desire to be saved, then what's the point?

gamila, I'm not a moderator and have no authority for saying this, but this forum is for discussions about evolution. Nonbiologists are more than welcome here. Many laypeople have questions they want help with, and we are willing to help. Sometimes we get an occassional creationist who beats their head against the wall of science. It seems to me that you are not here to learn or to rationally discuss specifics but only to state that natural selection does not happen, for whatever agenda you have. Well, you've come to the wrong place for that. You will get no converts here. There are plenty of forums available to you where you can happily exchange dubious quotes.

Confrontation is not a good strategy for fruitful discussion. I, at least, would be more tolerant if you were willing to discuss why you hold the beliefs you do. I realize that you're not a biologist and so don't have much knowledge of the subjects discussed here, but that's OK. You're not discussing anything, though. Tell us why you believe the sources you have quoted, not necessarily in scientific mumbo jumbo, but just discuss something, anything. This is a discussion forum. Give us one of your quotes and then tell us why you think they are right. Don't just give them to us and say "There. I'm right and you're wrong". This doesn't get us too far. Evolutionists believe they are right because they have a wealth of evidence in support of their beliefs. Give us your evidence and we'll talk. Some thought is required, preferrably of the rational variety. But as I said before, an open mind is required. I believe what I believe for good resaons. I KNOW very little of any consequence beyond a shadow of a doubt, but probability is good enough for me to be a missionary.

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

1)darwin noted that the cambrian explosion made his theory wrongit is noted

This has been called the Big Bang of Biology. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)

2) speciation makes NS wrong- i am talking about traits not genes and mutations are not what NS deals with

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new speciesgenetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them onNS is all about the transmission of already acquired traitsif evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

3* i have given evidence that harmful genes can be common thus invalidating NS which says they should rare

these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis."These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer," she says.

Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says."They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end," she says

gamila wrote:it shows harmful genes are commonwhich should not be the case for natural selection cliams harmful genes should be rarethus NS is wrong

I have already addressed this question, and you have refused to answer it. Would you mind finally explaining what was wrong with my previous analysis of why oncogenic genes might be considered beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint? For that matter, you have also declined to answer my question of what sort of theory you propose in place of natural selection.

gamila wrote:darwin noted that the cambrian explosion made his theory wrong

This has also been answered previously, by myself and others. You have also never explained what was wrong with those explanations, either. In fact your habit of refusing to answer questions presented to you is beginning to convince me that wbla3335 is right. You are clearly not interested in a reasonable discussion; you are here to push whatever agenda you have, without any desire to keep an open mind to other possibilities and without any regard for the fact that your claims have been proven wrong time and again. If I am wrong and you really are interested in an intelligent, reasonable discussion, then you can begin by answering the questions presented to you.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

But it is possible to be born with a gene fault that may cause cancer. This doesn't mean you will definitely get cancer. But it means that you are more likely to develop cancer than the average person

The first breast cancer gene faults to be found were BRCA1 and BRCA2. These faults don't mean you have cancer, or you definitely will get cancer but women with these genes have a 50 to 80% chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetime. We now know of other genes that significantly increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. They are called TP53 and PTEN. Genetic tests are available to women with a high risk of having changes in their BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or PTEN genes.

Researchers have found other common genes that can slightly increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. These are called CASP8, FGFR2, TNRCP, MAP3K1 and LSP1. No tests are available to find these genes yet.

Rare genes that can also increase breast cancer risk slightly include CHEK2, ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRIP1 and PALB2. No tests are available for these genes yet

With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations

Hereditary cancers are those associated with inherited gene mutations. Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major genes related to hereditary breast cancer. Women who have inherited certain mutations in these genes have a high risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other types of cancer during their lifetimes

Additionally, BRCA1 mutations are associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Mutations in the BRCA2 gene are associated with an increased chance of developing male breast cancer and cancers of the prostate and pancreas. An aggressive form of skin cancer called melanoma is also more common among people who have BRCA2 mutations.

Inherited changes in several other genes, including CDH1, PTEN, STK11, and TP53, have been found to increase the risk of developing breast cancer

Some research suggests that inherited variants of the ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, and RAD51 genes, as well as certain versions of the AR gene, may also be associated with breast cancer risk. Not all studies have shown these connections, however. Of these genes, ATM and CHEK2 have the strongest evidence of being related to the risk of developing breast cancer.

"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.) Today, Gould writes, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)